Saturday, November 16, 2013

Anti-Miminum Wage Contra Statism?

I recently had a chance to observe some comments on social media when
someone posted something supporting an increase in the national minimum
wage in the United States. The reactions included claims of socialism as
well as fears of creeping statism in the name of compassion.

Rather than getting into an extended debate over the issue, which rarely
has any potential or opportunity for serious or legitimate discussion
on places like Facebook, I chose to pose the following questions
instead:

1A: Is anything that questions neoclassic economic
theory and neoliberal economic policy automatically now labeled
"socialist", and, is that supposed to be a warning or fear marker rather
than a policy critique?

2A: Is the potential loss of jobs for
youth entering the workplace worth more than the well-being and dignity
of those who need to support themselves and their families at minimum
wage jobs?

2B: As a corollary to the last question, is the only
money in play from a low wage worker-vs low wage worker in a zero sum
game, or is it OK to look at the money in CEO salaries and corporate
profits as part of the equation as well?

3A: Does anyone disagree
that the current legal and cultural climate sets up corporations as
somewhat amoral "persons" whose primary overriding goal and
responsibility is to increase the monetary value of the business to
shareholders?

3B: Do the potential employee and employer
represent two individuals with equal power who meet face to face to
discuss the social and monetary value of the employee's labor, the value
of the employer's business, capital, and product, and what a fair and
livable arrangement would be in terms of work schedule, salary,
benefits, and so on until a mutually satisfactory arrangement is reached
and legally bound in a contract?

3C: If not, what forms of
recourse should a current or potential employee have to counter the
ability of the employer to demand more value from the worker's labor
than the worker receives in useful compensation? To arbitrate a fair and
livable arrangement?

3D: Is not the goal of immediate,
short-term corporate profit and the power of the employer relative to
the worker going to tend toward lower wages, fewer benefits, and an
unfair and unlivable arrangement? Do not labor unions and legal
protections help to balance out the interests of such myopic profit
motives?

3E: Are there not corporations and cooperative-based
businesses that pursue long-term benefit to community and worker above
the profit motive yet still make money? If so, why shouldn't the legal
and cultural climate favoring the less generous and sustainable business
practices be criticized, restricted, and ultimately replaced?

3F:
For those who favor the libertarian style solution to corrupt and
unfair business practice, do you assume that employee and employer have
equal power? That the employee has multiple readily available options of
equal value to choose from? That these choices, if they exist, do not
carry additional burdens? That being fired (for objecting to workplace
conditions or questioning compensation) or quitting in protest has no
social repercussions and no effect on gaining future employment
(especially in the same industry)? And even if these things were true,
is there no ethical obligation to those who must suffer until the
situation resolves itself by such Laissez-faire principles?

3G:
If, based on the last question, workers do not have the social,
cultural, and economic freedom to choose their way out of a bad
employment situation (either doing so with great difficulty or peril or
simply lacking any viable options), or if it is not ethical to let
people suffer until Laissez-faire principles eventually intercede and
improve working conditions and employment options, does not the
government have the obligation to intervene? Especially since the
welfare of the people is one the primary duties of government in the US
Constitution?